On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 10:48:08 AM UTC-7, Trimble B wrote:
> DIABLO III - Buyers Loathe It ...it really is meeting with a a lot of
> disapproval.
>
> http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews
>
> The heavy online commitment /component & need to buy 'stuff'
>
> (is it single game player at all ?)
>
> will almost certainly will drive this Bunny from a purchase.

Just bumping for the questions on why people didn't like D3.
link is still good.

- Justisaur

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT), Justisaur
<justisaur@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 10:48:08?AM UTC-7, Trimble B wrote:
>> DIABLO III - Buyers Loathe It ...it really is meeting with a a lot of
>> disapproval.
>>
>> http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews
>>
>> The heavy online commitment /component & need to buy 'stuff'
>>
>> (is it single game player at all ?)
>>
>> will almost certainly will drive this Bunny from a purchase.
>
>Just bumping for the questions on why people didn't like D3.
>link is still good.

When looking at reviews, you need to remember that there are really
two "Diablo III"s... the one we got on release, and the one that's
available now.

The game on release was... problematic. It didn't help that this
iteration marked a significant change to the franchise's art style. A
lot of fans of the original found the new style too colorful and gaudy
and - in their ever-so delicate ways - made their distaste known.
That, in and of itself, is not a bad thing, but Blizzard didn't help
themselves with how they responded to the criticism (essentially, a
"fuck you, this is how it's gonna be" to the long-time fans). That
sort of set the tone for the whole release. "Diablo III", Blizzard
insisted, was going to be different and they made it clear they didn't
really care about any concerns people raised, whether it was about the
art style or the real-world auction house.

Which was problem #2 with the game. The real-money auction house was,
perhaps, created from a desire to control some of the cheating and
grinding that was rampant in "Diablo II", but it wasn't well
implemented, gave an impression of profiteering on Blizzard's part,
and demanded an always-on connection for the game... even if you just
wanted to play the single-player campaign. And, again, Blizzard did
themselves no favors with their response to any critiques of the
feature: like it or lump it, they said; they weren't going to change.

Fortunately, Blizzard eventually did lighten up on the subject and -
after the console releases shipped without the controversial auction
house - a patch removed it from the PC version. This won back a lot of
favor from fans that Blizzard had earlier disregarded. That, combined
with numerous game mechanic patches and with the passage of time have
significantly transformed the game to the point that many can't
understand why people may have been upset. Judged simply by the game
itself, as it stands today, Diablo 3 is a significantly better
experience for the player.

Nonetheless, while the scars have healed somewhat, the Diablo
franchise no longer has quite the cachet it once did, and I think
that's largely due to D3's release shenanigans. It's hard to remember
how much "Diablo" once dominated the loot-based ARPG genre. Games like
"Torchlight" and "Titan Quest" were developed - and flourished -
because so many true fans got pissed off at Blizzard and supported the
alternatives instead.

Even today, Activision/Blizzard can't shake the stain of how poorly
they responded to customers (it doesn't help that they've
foot-in-mouthed themselves repeatedly on innumerable other occasions
on other topics over the last decade too). But it's earned the
corporation a reputation of being more profit-oriented than interested
in creating a game that customers want.

Myself, I was never the biggest fan of the Diablo franchise, so - when
Blizzard announced "Diablo 3" was going to be online-only - it was
easy for me to give up on the game; I wasn't really interested in
playing it anyway. Similarly, I've got nothing invested in "Diablo 4",
so I'll pass on playing that one too. Activision's reputation - which
started to sour with the whole Diablo 3 debacle, hasn't sweetened any
since 2011, and the game hasn't become anymore appealing to me. So
it's an easy decision to avoid their newest game.

On Tue, 06 Jun 2023 16:56:12 -0400, Spalls Hurgenson
<spallshurgenson@gmail.com> wrote:

>When looking at reviews, you need to remember that there are really
>two "Diablo III"s... the one we got on release, and the one that's
>available now.

I thought I made the above point clear in my own post, but if I
didn't, this is the most important thing in Spalls entire post.

On Tue, 6 Jun 2023 10:22:30 -0700 (PDT), in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Justisaur wrote:

>On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 10:48:08?AM UTC-7, Trimble B wrote:
>> DIABLO III - Buyers Loathe It ...it really is meeting with a a lot of
>> disapproval.
>>
>> http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/diablo-iii/user-reviews
>>
>> The heavy online commitment /component & need to buy 'stuff'
>>
>> (is it single game player at all ?)
>>
>> will almost certainly will drive this Bunny from a purchase.
>
>Just bumping for the questions on why people didn't like D3.
>link is still good.
>
One of my gamer friends reports that MTX is currently limited to
cosmetics.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<snip>
>Myself, I was never the biggest fan of the Diablo franchise, so - when
>Blizzard announced "Diablo 3" was going to be online-only - it was
>easy for me to give up on the game; I wasn't really interested in
>playing it anyway. Similarly, I've got nothing invested in "Diablo 4",
>so I'll pass on playing that one too. Activision's reputation - which
>started to sour with the whole Diablo 3 debacle, hasn't sweetened any
>since 2011, and the game hasn't become anymore appealing to me. So
>it's an easy decision to avoid their newest game.

There was one more bad thing about Diablo3.

They were posting Dev gameplay videos almost up to release and showed
stuff that was not in the game.

Having a gameplay video a long time from launch show things that got cut
is one thing, posting a vid a couple weeks before release that shows
skills that will not exist in the game - is fucking bait & switch.

It's like Blizzard went out of their way to alienate their customers for
a quick cash grab - the Activision influence.

Xocyll
--
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably,
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr

On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 13:47:50 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>One of my gamer friends reports that MTX is currently limited to
>cosmetics.

Right down to horse armor that doesn't do anything. Bethesda was
really ahead of its time in 2006... except the horse armor in Oblivion
was 1/4 of what Blizzard is charging. Although, in fairness to "Diablo
4", you do get a horse for that price.

And none of it inspires me to rush out and buy "Diablo 4".

On 6/10/2023 8:11 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 13:47:50 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> One of my gamer friends reports that MTX is currently limited to
>> cosmetics.
>
>
> Right down to horse armor that doesn't do anything. Bethesda was
> really ahead of its time in 2006... except the horse armor in Oblivion
> was 1/4 of what Blizzard is charging. Although, in fairness to "Diablo
> 4", you do get a horse for that price.
>
> And none of it inspires me to rush out and buy "Diablo 4".
>
Well, to be fair nothing really inspires you to rush out and _buy_ a
game when you get so many for free. :P

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 10:01:24 -0700, Dimensional Traveler
<dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 6/10/2023 8:11 AM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>> On Wed, 07 Jun 2023 13:47:50 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:

>>> One of my gamer friends reports that MTX is currently limited to
>>> cosmetics.

>> Right down to horse armor that doesn't do anything. Bethesda was
>> really ahead of its time in 2006... except the horse armor in Oblivion
>> was 1/4 of what Blizzard is charging. Although, in fairness to "Diablo
>> 4", you do get a horse for that price.

>> And none of it inspires me to rush out and buy "Diablo 4".

>Well, to be fair nothing really inspires you to rush out and _buy_ a
>game when you get so many for free. :P

True. To some degree, I empathize with game developers; it's really,
really hard to compete with free. I can - intellectually - understand
the appeal of using MTX to bolster their bottom line. So what if it
compromises your vision or worsens the developer's reputation; it
keeps your company afloat.

But on the other hand, I'm not against paying for quality products
either. The vast majority of games in my library* are games I've
purchased. I might grab a game that's free... but the ones I play? The
ones that encourage me to buy the sequel, or another game from the
same publisher? Those are the games for which I've laid down cold hard
cash.

In many ways, by making a game free? It encourages me to spend less...
not because there are so many free games, but because those games
aren't worth spending money on. Cosmetic MTX are boring, and
game-effecting MTX only exist because the core gameplay sucks. The
good games... I'll happily pay.

So getting so many games for free only makes me want to avoid the
freebies and actually buy the games that deserve it.

* Excluding my Epic Games library, of course. Those are all freebies.
But that's only a small percentage of my games, and most are
duplicates of games I purchased on Steam/GOG/etc. anyway

On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:37:06 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>But on the other hand, I'm not against paying for quality products
>either.

^This, +1

Horse armor is not a quality product. I don't understand why anyone pays
money for it. But it must work for them; they must make money on it.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 08:58:29 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:37:06 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>
>>But on the other hand, I'm not against paying for quality products
>>either.
>
>^This, +1
>
>Horse armor is not a quality product. I don't understand why anyone pays
>money for it. But it must work for them; they must make money on it.

It's my fault.

I paid for it.

(the Bethesda version, I mean. Since I don't own Diablo IV, I can't
get the Blizzard horse armor.)

But my stupidity was what encouraged Bethesda - and thousands of other
developers - that cosmetic MTX was a good idea.

I'm sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 10:22:29 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
Spalls Hurgenson wrote:

>On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 08:58:29 -0500, Zaghadka <zaghadka@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 10 Jun 2023 13:37:06 -0400, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action,
>>Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
>>
>>>But on the other hand, I'm not against paying for quality products
>>>either.
>>
>>^This, +1
>>
>>Horse armor is not a quality product. I don't understand why anyone pays
>>money for it. But it must work for them; they must make money on it.
>
>It's my fault.
>
>I paid for it.
>
>(the Bethesda version, I mean. Since I don't own Diablo IV, I can't
>get the Blizzard horse armor.)
>
>But my stupidity was what encouraged Bethesda - and thousands of other
>developers - that cosmetic MTX was a good idea.
>
>I'm sorry. I'll try not to let it happen again.
>
Buying Barding from Bethesda is Bad. Bummer.

--
Zag

No one ever said on their deathbed, 'Gee, I wish I had
spent more time alone with my computer.' ~Dan(i) Bunten